Snapped spindle

[Drago]

Nothing worse than tortion break, hence the importance of a strong gusset.

 

[silva]

Let us pray that 420 chains are never banned. Imagine the moaning!

Your Logic is Limping on 1 Leg: why would anybody ban anything that is used with MORE safety reserve than the normal?

 

[silva]

Nothing worse than tortion break, hence the importance of a strong gusset.

A lunch break is about the only break I can see as a positive thing.

 

[Drago]

Your Logic is Limping on 1 Leg: why would anybody ban anything that is used with MORE safety reserve than the normal?

What logic? How dare you accused me of trying to use logic!

 

[Ming the Merciless]

What is that "this" I would have "doubling down"?
I saw a contradiction, and made it Captain Obvious with an analogy, because Captain Obvious Rules Them All in Making Things Clear.

This is a thread of 5-6 years ago, the case was a Snap after 3 years Service:
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/shimano-105-crank-axle-failure.267532/page-2
The picture there:
https://www.cyclechat.net/attachments/485722/
... where Vapin' Joe Vaped the Thought I Thought after reading your nowadays, repeating story

... and after putting figures on it (those online calculators), 20 grammes more (=reducing the weight reduction (=the "win" of the HollowTech2) towards square taper from 130 to 110 grammes) wins 29% better resistence to such torsion break, I'd frankly put how can anyone not agree?
20 grammes is within credit card weight range, and it buys a safety reserve of 29%.

The HollowTech2 design choices may be acceptable for competition racing in a case of replacing cranksets after every race, season, whatever within a couple years, because it can be claimed there that technology is a part of the competition, next to sport/fitness, the "best" being based on the two.
But outside that niche part of the bicycle users, I consider it quite Insane in the Brain to proclamate the design as a Standard for Everyone, let alone consequence of it failing is a recipe for injury.

The same can be said about their crank construction - instead of massive material, a construction of 2 U shaped cross sections leaving a hollow, together resulting in a part of that 130 grammes "gain" relative to square taper. It ALSO proved as failing, and in such numbers that it ended up forcing Shimano to do "something", despite far beyond warranty, as to avoid accumulated lawsuit costs that could end up far more costly than a recall, which has in itself a bogus factor, since inspection and seeing nothing guarantees nothing about tomorrow and any day beyond, proven by peoples stories, as I already mentioned here.
That implies a failure that propagates far enough without seeing anything externally. That, is the clear danger, THE recipe for disaster, since even people that bother checking get fooled into further using it.

You got the thickness of the spindle wrong and you put ridiculous torque figures in the calc. It is poppycock that you showed anything other than lack of knowledge.

 

[silva]

What logic? How dare you accused me of trying to use logic!

I accused you of NOT trying to use logic!

 

[silva]

You got the thickness of the spindle wrong and you put ridiculous torque figures in the calc. It is poppycock that you showed anything other than lack of knowledge.

Another repeat for you: absolute values don't matter for percents...
29% of 9, or 99999, or 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.
The % is FORMULA based, NOT FIGURES based.

 

[classic33]

Another repeat for you: absolute values don't matter for percents...
29% of 9, or 99999, or 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.
The % is FORMULA based, NOT FIGURES based.

That last part, if true(Which I doubt) should mean that you wouldn't be able to supply any figures.

 

[Drago]

I accused you of NOT trying to use logic!

How dare you accuse me of not using logic! Ill have you know Im half Vulcan!

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Another repeat for you: absolute values don't matter for percents...
29% of 9, or 99999, or 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.
The % is FORMULA based, NOT FIGURES based.

Absolute values, absolutely affect whether the shear yield strength will be exceeded. Designing for terminator levels of strength and destruction is just science fiction fantasy. I suggest the first thing you need to learn to do is maintain your bike. Gain some practical experience and knowledge first.

 

[fossyant]

I suggest the first thing you need to learn to do is maintain your bike. Gain some practical experience and knowledge first.

Don't be silly. I'm 99.999999999999999% sure he won't do that.

 

[silva]

That last part, if true(Which I doubt) should mean that you wouldn't be able to supply any figures.

This is once over again over again once over discussion restart attempt again.
The links to both sites calculators (torsion and mass) have been given several times in this thread.
And what you here doubt about, was also proven, by different figures leading to a same percentage.

SO, I Doubt that you Doubt, you're Just Jesting "I Don't Know Nothing Really For Sure", which became about the 33th Classic in this thread.

 

[fossyant]

This is once over again over again once over discussion restart attempt again.

What you talkin' about Willis ?

 

[silva]

Absolute values, absolutely affect whether the shear yield strength will be exceeded. Designing for terminator levels of strength and destruction is just science fiction fantasy. I suggest the first thing you need to learn to do is maintain your bike. Gain some practical experience and knowledge first.

Your "exceeded" exceeds what the formula allows (hence the "maximal" in the parameter names).
And this wasn't designing for "Terminator levels of ...Blah Blah", this was designing for Safety, that is, putting a reserve, in which my example case of 50% more shaft wall thickness delivered 29% more reserve, helping avoiding the failure that proved itself, even at 70 year old "Terminator levels of... Blah Blah".

 

[silva]

What you talkin' about Willis ?

About Safety Arnold!